News

Theresa May tells MPs not to take ‘reckless gamble’ of scrapping Trident

Written by:

Josh May

Posted On:

18th July 2016

Theresa May has warned that ditching Britain’s nuclear deterrent would be a “reckless gamble”, as MPs prepare to vote on the Trident missile system.

The Government plans to replace four Vanguard submarines with four Successor submarines to carry the Trident warheads

Credit:

PA Images

The Prime Minister will open the debate for the Government this afternoon, making her first appearance at the despatch box since entering No 10.

She will say that the nuclear threat has “not gone away, if anything, it has increased”.

Labour is split three ways on the issue, as Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to vote against the standing party policy of backing Trident renewal, key figures in the Shadow Cabinet will abstain, and the bulk of MPs are expected to vote in favour of the motion.

The question to be put to MPs is whether they support replacing the current Vanguard submarines which carry the Trident warheads with four new Successor submarines – a programme that is currently estimated to cost £31bn with a £10bn contingency.

According to The Times, new Chancellor Philip Hammond wants to make sure the Treasury takes a role in the project to stop costs spiralling out of control.

The vote itself is not binding, but the Government has pledged previously to seek the consent of MPs about renewal.

‘GROSS IRRESPONSIBILITY’

Mrs May, who stressed the importance of a swift vote on Trident when she was running for the Conservative leadership, will argue it would be “gross irresponsibility” for the UK to give up its nuclear deterrent.

“It is impossible to say for certain that no extreme threats will emerge in the next 30 or 40 years to threaten our security and way of life,” she will say.

“And it would be a gross irresponsibility to lose the ability to meet such threats by discarding the ultimate insurance against those risks in the future.

“Once nuclear weapons have been given up it is almost impossible to get them back – and the process of creating a new deterrent may take decades."

She will add: “We cannot compromise on our national security. We cannot outsource the grave responsibility we shoulder for keeping our people safe. And we cannot abandon our ultimate safeguard out of misplaced idealism.

“That would be a reckless gamble: a gamble that would enfeeble our allies and embolden our enemies. A gamble with the safety and security of families in Britain that we must never be prepared to take.”

LABOUR SPLITS

Labour MPs will not be whipped on the vote, leaving them to free to vote how they wish.

The existing party policy remains in favour of renewing Trident as a review set up by Mr Corbyn, a longstanding unilateralist, is yet to report.

The Labour leader told the Guardian he would vote against the Government’s motion – and Labour policy – today: “I will be voting against continuous at-sea deterrent, because it rules out any compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

“I’ve been involved in peace transformation all of my life, and I think we’ve got an opportunity to show leadership in the world.”

The stance differs from the one put forward by Emily Thornberry and Clive Lewis, two of Mr Corbyn’s allies who serve as Shadow Foreign Secretary and Shadow Defence Secretary respectively.

The MPs, who are both proponents of unilateral disarmament, wrote in a comment piece for the Guardian that today’s debate was “shameful game playing” and pledged to abstain.

Deputy leader Tom Watson, who will form part of an expected majority of Labour MPs in favour of renewal, said it was “unacceptable” to abstain.

"Now the government have made us take another vote on this, you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility for making a decision," he told the BBC.

"Some people say Labour should abstain on this vote. I think that is unacceptable. You have to be responsible. You have to take a position. You either agree with Trident or you don't."

Labour leadership hopefuls Angela Eagle and Owen Smith have both said they will back renewal of Trident.

Contributions from readers

Cock of the North

08:13 on 18th July 2016

Turkey has USA controlled nuclear missiles based in its territory. It pays nothing for them. We host American missiles, but humiliatingly pay a fortune to U. S. arms makers. Spare us the canard that we have "independent" control. Major General Patrick Cordingley, who commanded UK forces in the First Gulf War, blew the whistle on this nonsense, and also argues that “Strategic nuclear weapons have no military use.”
“It would seem the government wishes to replace Trident simply to remain a nuclear power alongside the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council".
Nukes do not protect us from bus bombs, tube bombs or having our soldiers hacked to death on British streets.

@JagPatel3

12:34 on 18th July 2016

It is not only critics on the left who have expressed concern about the excessive and spiralling cost of the Trident nuclear submarines programme.
Even the most recent Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence admitted to the Public Accounts Committee that, it is the likelihood of financial risks on the Trident replacement programme materialising sometime soon, which keeps him awake at night.
Anyone who has worked in the defence engineering industry will know that financial risks start-out as innocuous looking technical risks on the Defence Contractor’s premises, where selected ones are deliberately concealed by the Contractor during the design and development phase, then skilfully transferred to MoD Abbey Wood, Bristol where they morph into ‘show stopping’ risks and come to the fore immediately after the main investment decision has been taken (as they have done so spectacularly on the Type 45 destroyers with total power blackouts), ultimately ending up as an additional cost burden on the Front Line Commands, who have recently been given responsibility for the defence equipment budget – resulting in sleepless nights for many other people too!
This happens because a key behavioural characteristic of Defence Contractors is that they will always choose to conceal technical risks identified early in the programme, by engaging with procurement officials and getting them to focus on declared risks which ordinarily fall in the trivia category, whilst skilfully diverting their attention away from those really huge ‘show stopping’ risks which they will only reveal later on, when things go wrong, to realise their objective of ‘growing’ the Contract by getting Abbey Wood Team Leader to raise Contract Amendments and/or let Post Design Services Contracts.
They achieve this by contriving situations which entice procurement officials into partaking in detailed design decisions relating to the evolving Technical Solution, and then use this involvement to coerce procurement officials into raising Contract Amendments later on. Indeed, it the very existence of Contract Amendments and PDS Contracts that causes Contractors to conceal ‘show stopping’ risks in the first place!
These concealed risks then come to the fore immediately after (never before) the main investment decision has been taken, surprising everyone (except the Contractor) and imposing a budget-busting burden on MoD.
And because there exists no ‘Code on Ethical Behaviour in Business’ which would offer protection to good people on the Contractor’s payroll (generally in the direct labour category) who are driven by strong professional, ethical and moral values and who would otherwise blow the whistle on this conspiracy of concealment, they are forced to remain silent.
The only people who are not in the know about this blatant scam are those in the pay of the State!
So the chances of financial risks coming to the fore on the Trident renewal programme not long after today’s Parliamentary vote are about as certain as night follows day.
@JagPatel3 on twitter